References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2019

Question 1

1.1 Case: C-783/19

Accepted Answer

1) Does the scope of protection of […] a designation of origin make it possible to protect that designation of origin not only as against similar products but also as against any services which may be associated with the direct or indirect distribution of those products?

2) Does the risk of infringement by evocation, to which the articles in question of the Community regulations refer, necessitate in the first instance a nominal analysis[,] to determine the effect that this has on the average consumer, or, in order to examine that risk of infringement by evocation[,] is it necessary to establish first of all that the products at issue are the same or similar or are complex products whose components include a product protected by a designation of origin?

3) Must the risk of infringement by evocation be defined using objective criteria when the names are exactly the same or highly similar or must that risk be calibrated by reference to the products and services which evoke and are evoked in order to conclude that the risk of evocation is tenuous or irrelevant?

4) In cases where there is a risk of evocation or exploitation, is the protection provided for in the legislation referred to specific protection related to the special features of the products concerned or must the protection be connected to the provisions on unfair competition?

Question 2

1.2 Case: C-785/19

Accepted Answer

a) Is Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision covers necessary lawyers’ fees as ‘legal costs’ or as ‘other expenses’ incurred by a holder of intellectual property rights within the meaning of Article 2 of the Enforcement Directive by virtue of the fact that he asserts, out of court, a right to apply for a prohibitory injunction against an infringer of those rights by way of a warning notice?

b) In the event that 1a) is answered in the negative: Is Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision covers the lawyers’ fees referred to in 1a) in the form of damages?

2. a) Is EU law, particularly with regard to

– Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Enforcement Directive
– Article 8 of the Copyright Directive, and
– Article 7 of the Computer Program Directive

to be interpreted as meaning that a holder of intellectual property rights within the meaning of Article 2 of the Enforcement Directive is in principle entitled to reimbursement of the full amount of the lawyers’ fees referred to in 1a), or at least a reasonable and substantial proportion of those fees, even if

– the alleged infringement has been committed by a natural person outside his trade or profession, and
– a national provision provides, for such a case, that such lawyers’ fees are generally recoverable only after the value in dispute has been reduced?

b) In the event that Question 2a) is answered in the affirmative: Is the EU law referred to in Question 2a) to be interpreted as meaning that an exception to the principle referred to in 2a), according to which the rightholder must be reimbursed the full amount of the lawyers’ fees referred to in 1a), or at least a reasonable and substantial proportion of those fees, taking account of other factors (such as, for instance, how current the work is, the period of publication and the infringement by a natural person outside the interests of his trade or profession) is to be considered even if the infringement of intellectual property rights within the meaning of Article 2 of the Enforcement Directive consists in file sharing, that is to say making a work available to the public by offering it for free download to all users on a freely accessible exchange platform that has no digital rights management?

Question 3

1.3 Case: C-728/19

Accepted Answer

For the protection of an unregistered Community design to come into being under art.11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 (‘the Regulation’), by the design being made available to the public within the meaning of art.11(1), must an event of disclosure, within the meaning of art.11(2), take place within the geographical confines of the Community, or is it sufficient that the event, wherever it took place, was such that, in the normal course of business, the event could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.11(2))?
Is the date for assessing the novelty of a design for which unregistered Community design protection is claimed, within the meaning of art.5(l)(a) of the Regulation, the date on which the unregistered Community design protection for the design came into being according to art.11 of the Regulation, or alternatively the date on which the relevant event of disclosure of the design, within the meaning of art.7(1) of the Regulation, could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming that the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.7(1)), or alternatively some other, and if so, which date?

Question 4

1.4 Case: C-684/19

Accepted Answer

Reference is made for a preliminary ruling on the following question concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) (‘the Directive’):

Does a third party referred to in an entry published on a website that contains a sign identical to a trade mark ‘use’ that trade mark, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Directive, if the entry was not placed there by the third party itself, but was taken by the website’s operator from another entry that the third party had placed in infringement of the trade mark?

Question 5

1.5 Case: C-637/19

Accepted Answer

Does the term ‘public’ in Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society have a uniform meaning?
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a court to be regarded as falling within the scope of the term ‘public’ within the meaning of those provisions?
If question 1 is answered in the negative:

a) In the event of communication of a protected work to a court, can that court fall within the scope of the term ‘public’?

b) In the event of distribution of a protected work to a court, can that court fall within the scope of the term ‘public’?
Does the fact that national legislation lays down a general principle of access to public documents in accordance with which any person who makes a request can access procedural documents transmitted to a court, except where they contain confidential information, affect the assessment of whether transmission to a court of a protected work amounts to a ‘communication to the public’ or a ‘distribution to the public’?

Question 6

1.6 Case: C-597/19

Accepted Answer

1(a) Can the downloading of a file via a peer-to-peer network and the simultaneous provision for uploading of parts (‘pieces’) thereof (which may be very fragmentary as compared to the whole) (‘seeding’) be regarded as a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, even if the individual pieces as such are unusable? If so,

(b) is there a de minimis threshold above which the seeding of those pieces would constitute a communication to the public?

(c) is the fact that seeding can take place automatically (as a result of the torrent client’s settings), and thus without the user’s knowledge, relevant?

2(a) Can a person who is the contractual holder of the copyright (or related rights), but does not himself exploit those rights and merely claims damages from alleged infringers - and whose economic business model thus depends on the existence of piracy, not on combating it - enjoy the same rights as those conferred by Chapter II of Directive 2004/48 on authors or licence holders who do exploit copyright in the normal way?

(b) How can the licence holder in that case have suffered ‘prejudice’ (within the meaning of Article 13 of Directive 2004/48) as a result of the infringement?

Are the specific circumstances set out in questions 1 and 2 relevant when assessing the correct balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the enforcement of intellectual property rights and, on the other, the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Charter, such as respect for private life and protection of personal data, in particular in the context of the assessment of proportionality?
Is, in all those circumstances, the systematic registration and general further processing of the IP-addresses of a ‘swarm’ of ‘seeders’ (by the licence holder himself, and by a third party on his behalf) legitimate under the General Data Protection Regulation, and specifically under Article 6(1)(f) thereof?

Question 7

1.7 Case: C-501/19

Accepted Answer

Do the holders of rights in musical works supply services within the meaning of Articles 24(1) and 25(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (the VAT Directive) to performance organisers from which collective management organisations, on the basis of an authorisation – a non-exclusive licence – receive remuneration, in their own name but on behalf of those right holders, for the public performance of musical works?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do collective management organisations, when receiving remuneration from performance organisers for the right to perform musical works for a public audience, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 28 of the VAT Directive, and are they required to issue invoices including VAT to the respective performance organisers, and, when remuneration is paid to authors and other holders of copyright in musical works, are the latter, in turn, required to issue invoices including VAT to the collective management organisation?

Question 8

1.8 Case: C500/19

Accepted Answer

Questions referred:

Is Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online video platform, as a host service provider, plays an active role, leading to a loss of the liability privilege, as a result of providing or offering to the user the following accompanying activities in addition to the provision of storage space for third-party content:

suggesting videos according to subject areas;
facilitating visitors to search by title or content information by means of an electronic directory of content, with the user being able to specify the title or content information;
providing online tips in relation to the use of the service (‘Help’);
with the user’s consent, linking the videos uploaded by the user with advertisements (but not any self-promotion by the platform operator) according to the selection of the target group by the user?

2. Is a national legal position whereby the cease-and-desist obligation of a host service provider (intermediary service provider) in an active role as accessory in respect of infringements by its users exists only on the condition that the accessory has knowingly encouraged the user’s infringement consistent with the first sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC, or is this provision to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must not make claims for a prohibitory injunction made by right holders against accessories dependent on knowing encouragement of the user’s infringement?

Are the provisions in Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC on the liability of intermediary service providers to be considered to be horizontal limitations of liability that benefit any intermediary service provider in a neutral role, even where its activity is to be qualified under copyright law as communication to the public that it has committed itself?
Are Article 14(3) (and also Article 12(3) and Article 13(2)) of Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the liability privilege in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC is available to a host service provider (intermediary service provider) in a neutral role even in the event of a claim for a prohibitory injunction being brought against it and that therefore even an injunction order by the courts with respect to such an intermediary service provider is admissible only if that intermediary service provider has actual knowledge of the illegal activity or information, or is such an injunction order by the courts admissible only if the host service provider does not expeditiously remove or disable the content objected to as infringing after a specific warning and confirms the infringement in judicial proceedings?

Question 9

1.9 Case: C-456/19

Accepted Answer

The questions concern the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and are as follows.

Must Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for registration of a trade mark which designates services and where the application relates to a sign, placed in a particular position, which covers large areas of the physical objects used to perform the services, it must be assessed whether the mark is not independent of the appearance of the objects concerned?
[Or 12] If question I is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary for the trade mark to depart significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned in order for the mark to be regarded as having distinctive character?

Question 10

1.10 Case: C-442/19

Accepted Answer

Has an operator of a platform for Usenet services (as NSE has been), under the circumstances as described in [points 1 to 7] and [16 hereof], made a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p.10; ‘the Copyright Directive’)?
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative (and there is thus a communication to the public): Does the finding that the operator of a platform for Usenet services has made a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive preclude the application of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p.1; ‘Directive on electronic commerce’)?
If the answer to question 1 or 2 is in the negative (and recourse to the exemption under Article 14(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce is therefore possible in principle):

Has the operator of a platform for Usenet services, who provides services as described in [points 1 to 7] and [16 hereof], played an active role that would in some other way preclude reliance on Article 14(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce?
Can the operator of a platform for Usenet services who has made a communication to the public and who is entitled to rely on Article 14(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce be prohibited from continuing the infringement, or can an injunction be imposed on it that goes beyond what is stated in Article 14(3) of the Directive on electronic commerce, or is that contrary to Article 15(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce?

Question 11

1.11 Case: C-392/19

Accepted Answer

Does the embedding of a work — which is available on a freely accessible website with the consent of the right holder — in the website of a third party by way of framing constitute communication to the public of that work within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC where it occurs through circumvention of protection measures against framing taken or instigated by the right holder?

Question 12

1.12 Case: C-372/19

Accepted Answer

Must Article 102 TFEU, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright and related rights and the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, be interpreted as meaning that there is abuse of a dominant position if a copyright management company which has a de facto monopoly in a Member State, applies a remuneration model to organisers of musical events for the right to communicate musical works to the public, based among other things on turnover,

Which uses a flat-rate tariff in tranches, instead of a tariff that takes into account the precise share (making use of advanced technical tools) of the music repertoire protected by the management company played during the event?
Which makes licence fees dependent on external elements such as, inter alia, the admission price, the price of refreshments, the artistic budget for the performers and the budget for other elements, such as decor?

Question 13

1.13 Case: C-354/19

Accepted Answer

In order to determine whether an SPC may be granted, it is necessary to apply Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009 and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96. However, the interpretation of those provisions in a case such as the present appears unclear, particularly in view of the fact that the application of the provisions, in the understanding of the Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Patent and Market Court of Appeal), has, in practice, been intended to stimulate research into new therapeutic uses of products already known. The Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen therefore requests a reply to the following question. […] In view of the fundamental purpose which the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is intended to fulfil, namely that of stimulating pharmaceutical research in the European Union, does Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, having regard to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, preclude an applicant who has previously been granted a supplementary protection certificate in respect of a product protected by a basic patent in force in respect of the product per se, from being granted a supplementary protection certificate for a new use of the product in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the new use constitutes a new therapeutic indication which is specifically protected by a new basic patent?

Question 14

1.14 Case: C-265/19

Accepted Answer

Is the obligation on a national court to interpret the Directive 2006/115 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (“the Directive”) in the light of the purpose and objective of the Rome Convention and/or the WPPT confined to concepts which are expressly referenced in the Directive, or does it, alternatively, extend to concepts which are only to be found in the two international agreements? In particular, to what extent must Article 8 of the Directive be interpreted in light of the requirement for “national treatment” under Article 4 of the WPPT?
Does a Member State have discretion to prescribe criteria for determining which performers qualify as “relevant performers” under Article 8 of the Directive? In particular, can a Member State restrict the right to share in equitable remuneration to circumstances where either (i) the performance takes place in a European Economic Area (“EEA”) country, or (ii) the performers are domiciles or residents of an EEA country?
What discretion does a Member State enjoy in responding to a reservation entered by another Contracting Party under article 15(3) of the WPPT? In particular, is the Member State required to mirror precisely the terms of the reservation entered by the other Contracting Party? Is a Contracting Party required not to apply the 30-day rule in Article 5 of the Rome Convention to the extent that it may result in a producer from the reserving party receiving remuneration under Article 15(1) but not the performers of the same recording receiving remuneration? Alternatively, is the responding party entitled to provide rights to the nationals of the reserving party on a more generous basis than the reserving party has done, i.e. can the responding party provide rights which are not reciprocated by the reserving party?
Is it permissible in any circumstances to confine the right to equitable remuneration to the producers of a sound recording, i.e. to deny the right to the performers whose performances have been fixed in that sound recording?

Question 15

1.15 Case: C-264/19

Accepted Answer

Do the addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, mentioned in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC and covered, as appropriate, by the information referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, also include:

(a) the email addresses of service users and/or

(b) the telephone numbers of service users and/or

(c) the IP addresses used by service users to upload infringing files, together with the precise point in time at which such uploading took place?
If the answer to Question 1(c) is in the affirmative:

Does the information to be provided under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC also cover the IP address that a user, who has previously uploaded infringing files, last used to access his or her Google/YouTube user account, together with the precise point in time at which access took place, irrespective of whether any infringement was committed when that account was last accessed?

Question 16

1.16 Case: C-147/19

Accepted Answer

Does the concept of the ‘reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes’ referred to in Article 8(2) of Directives 92/100 and 2006/115 include the reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes in an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of an audiovisual work?
In the event that the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a television broadcasting organisation which, for any type of communication to the public, uses an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of a cinematographic or audiovisual work in which a phonogram published for commercial purposes has been reproduced, under an obligation to pay the single equitable remuneration provided for in Article 8(2) of the aforementioned directives?

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-785/19 Preliminary reference in relation to the compatibility of the ceiling on the recoverable amount of costs associated with a warning notice Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Koch Media GmbH v HC	Directive 2004/48/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2009/24/EC	Comments by 13 December 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 06 February 2020
C-783/19 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne - Designations of Origin Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne	Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 6 January 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 02 March 2020
C-728/19 Extent of necessary disclosure prior to the registration of an Unregistered Community Design under Regulation 6/2002 - Determination of the date for assessing novelty of a design Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Beverly Hills Teddy Bear v PMS International Group PLC	Regulation 6/2002	Comments by 25 November 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 17 January 2020
C-684/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Article 5(1) Directive 2008/95/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	mk advokaten GbR v MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR	Article 5(1) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008	Comments by 29 October 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 23 December 2019
C-637/19 Preliminary Reference on the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	BY	Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 30 October 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 11 December 2019
C-607/19 Concerning trade mark of ‘irrigation sprinkler’ - counterclaim seeking a declaration that EU trade mark has lapsed	Husqvarna AB	Article 51(1)(a)	Comments by 3 October 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 27 November 2019
C-597/19 Concerning the interpretation of “communication to the public” Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	M.I.C.M. Mircom International Content Management & Consulting	- Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 - Directive 2004/48 - Article 13	Comments by 30 September 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 November 2019
C-501/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	UCMR – ADA Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor v Pro Management Insolv IPURL, acting as liquidator of Asociației Culturale ‘Suflet de Român’	Council Directive 2006/112/EC	Comments by 15 August 2019 Deadline for the UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 9 October 2019
C-500/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2000/31/EC and Directive 2004/48/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG v YouTube LLC Google Austria GmbH	Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2000/31/EC and Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 28 August 2019 Deadline for the UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 22 October 2019
C-456/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Östgötatrafiken AB v Patent- och registreringsverket	Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015	Comments by 31 July 2019 Deadline for the UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 25 September 2019
C-442/19 Preliminary Reference on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Stichting Brein v News-Service Europe BV	Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 29 July 2019 Deadline for the UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 23 September 2019
C-392/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz	Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 11 July 2019 Deadline for the UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 04 September 2019
C-372/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Article 102 TFEU and Article 16 Directive 2014/26/EU Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v BVBA Weareone.World NV Wecandance	Article 102 TFEU and Article 16 Directive 2014/26/EU	Comments by 04 July 2019 Deadline for the UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 28 August 2019
C-354/19 Request for preliminary ruling, on the interpretation of Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009 and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96 Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket	Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009 and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96	Comments by 3 July 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 19 August 2019
C-265/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Directive 2006/115/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Recorded Artists Actors Performers Limited v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited, Minister for Jobs Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland and the Attorney General	Directive 2006/115/EC	Comments by 21 June 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 17 July 2019
C-264/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.	Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC and Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 21 June 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 17 July 2019
C-237/19 Preliminary reference on the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks)	Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltato és Kerreskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (National Intellectual Property Office)	Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 21 May 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 15 July 2019
C-214/19 P Appeal against the judgement of the General Court in case T-832/17	achtung! GmbH v EUIPO	Article 7(1)(b) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation.	Comments by 31 July 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 23 August 2019
C-147/19 Request for preliminary ruling on the concept of “reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes” referred to in Article 8(2) of Directives 92/100/EEC and 2006/115/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Atresmedia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación, S.A v Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Artistas e Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE)	Directives 92/100/EEC and 2006/115/EC	Comments by 15 April 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 7 June 2019
C-142/19 P Dovgan v EUIPO - Trade mark Appeal brought on 19 February 2019 by Dovgan GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-830/16 Monolith Frost GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Dovgan v EUIPO	Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court	Comments by 21 August 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 13 September 2019
C-143/19 P Appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-253/17	Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO	Articles 15(1), 51(1)(a) and 66(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.	Comments by 17 July 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 9 August 2019
C-125/19 P Appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-848/16	Vans Inc. v Deichmann SE	Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (1) (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)	Comments by 17 July 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 9 August 2019
C-123/19 P Appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-817/16	Vans Inc. v EUIPO	Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (1) (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)	Comments by 17 July 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 9 August 2019
C-121/19 P Appeal against the decision of the General Court in case T-471/17 P	Edison SpA v EUIPO	CArticle 28(8) EUTMR	Comments by 11 September 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 4 October 2019
C-115/19 P Appeal against the decision of the General Court in Case T-665/17	China Construction Bank Corp. v EUIPO	Article 8(1)(b) (EU) Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR)	Comments by 10 July 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 1 August 2019
C-6/19 P Concerning scope of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 and whether, in order to be caught by it, a sign depicting part of a product must represent	Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO	Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94	Comments by 15 May 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 June 2019

References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2019

1. Table of cases

1.1 Case: C-783/19

1.2 Case: C-785/19

1.3 Case: C-728/19

1.4 Case: C-684/19

1.5 Case: C-637/19

1.6 Case: C-597/19

1.7 Case: C-501/19

1.8 Case: C500/19

1.9 Case: C-456/19

1.10 Case: C-442/19

1.11 Case: C-392/19

1.12 Case: C-372/19

1.13 Case: C-354/19

1.14 Case: C-265/19

1.15 Case: C-264/19

1.16 Case: C-147/19

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Table of cases

1.1 Case: C-783/19

1.2 Case: C-785/19

1.3 Case: C-728/19

1.4 Case: C-684/19

1.5 Case: C-637/19

1.6 Case: C-597/19

1.7 Case: C-501/19

1.8 Case: C500/19

1.9 Case: C-456/19

1.10 Case: C-442/19

1.11 Case: C-392/19

1.12 Case: C-372/19

1.13 Case: C-354/19

1.14 Case: C-265/19

1.15 Case: C-264/19

1.16 Case: C-147/19

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK